Responsible and sometimes critical comment on topical legal matters of general interest. This blog does not offer legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.
Pro Aequitate Dicere

Wednesday, 27 March 2013

Pre-Easter Roundup of legal news - (1)

Sir Sydney Kentridge QC

There is a massive amount of legal activity at the present time. Here is a roundup of some it.

1. The highly controversial Justice and Security Bill has cleared the House of Lords. All that remains is for the Bill to receive Royal Assent. Implementation will follow and bring about the extension of closed material procedures to civil proceedings. The Bill enhances Parliamentary supervision over the security services.

2. New laws for missing persons - Ministry of Justice. The Presumption of Death Act 2013 ... means relatives can apply for a certificate declaring someone as presumed dead. The certificate will be equivalent to a death certificate and means
those left behind can deal with the legal and financial affairs of the
missing person – for example enabling them to stop direct debits and
other outgoings. The changes apply to England and Wales - bringing them into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3. Crown Court at Manchester - Sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Martin Rudland in R v Brewer are available - Judiciary R v Brewer and see the earlier post of 11th February.

4. The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Othman v Secretary of State for the Home Department has been published. Interestingly, the government briefed three Queen's Counsel and a Junior to handle this case. At paragraphs 58 and 59, the Master of the Rolls stated:

"Torture is universally abhorred as an
evil. A state cannot expel a person to another state where there is a
real risk that he will be tried on the basis of evidence which there is a
real possibility may have been obtained by torture. That principle is
accepted by the Secretary of State and is not in doubt. That is the
principle which SIAC had to apply in the present case in the light of
all the evidence that it heard and read. This included evidence as to
what had happened and what there was a real risk would happen if Mr
Othman faced a retrial on the very serious charges that he faces. SIAC
found that there was a real risk that evidence obtained by torture would
be admitted at the retrial and that, as a consequence, there was a real
risk that he would be subject to a flagrant denial of justice.

In order to succeed in this appeal, the
Secretary of State has to show that SIAC erred in law. It is not
sufficient to persuade us that we would have reached a different
conclusion on the facts and Mr Eadie rightly recognised the difficulty
of such an exercise. The Secretary of State accepts that SIAC directed
itself properly as to the general legal test to apply. Her case that
SIAC nevertheless erred in law is based on a detailed examination of a
careful and comprehensive judgment. As we have stated at paras 5 and 6
above, criticisms of this kind of a decision by a specialist tribunal
are particularly difficult to sustain. For the reasons that we have
given, we are satisfied that SIAC did not commit any legal errors."

5. 'Self-representing litigants' are OUT and 'Litigants in Person' are back - see the Master of the Rolls' guidance The term ‘Litigant in Person’ (LiP) should continue to be the sole
term used to describe individuals who exercise their right to conduct
legal proceedings on their own behalf. This Guidance applies to all proceedings in all criminal, civil and family courts.

6. There are scathing judicial comments in Wright v Wright Supplies Ltd about the problems arising in relation to litigants in person. Sir Alan Ward said - "We may have to accept that we live in austere times, but
as I come to the end of eighteen years service in this court, I shall
not refrain from expressing my conviction that justice will be ill
served indeed by this emasculation of legal aid."

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. criminal background check california

About Me

Peter Hargreaves LL.B (Hons). Live in Greater Manchester but spend as much time as possible in N. Yorkshire. Politically, closest to the Lib Dems than any other! Retired after 40 years in civil aviation. Life long interest in law about which there is much misinformation and misunderstanding. My blog seeks to look at topical items and their complexities and tries to explain things in a straightforward way. Obiter means "by the way" and my posts are "by the way." I hope that the posts are responsible, balanced and informative but it is for you, the reader, to make up your own mind. I do not seek to persuade you. At all times I will try to speak for fairness - Pro Aequitate Dicere.